Bob Schwartz

Category: Uncategorized

There Goes the Brain Surgeon Stereotype Again

Ben Carson has provided ample evidence that the legendary skill and knowledge of some brain surgeons might be limited to brain surgery.

But even those who don’t think he is up to the job of President still were giving him credit for sensitivity and compassion, demonstrated by his great work as a doctor and by his sincere profession of Christian faith.

Along with his knowledge, that compassion—or at least his role as a compassionate communicator—is now in question.

Here’s what Reuters reports Carson said about Syrian refugees:

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson on Thursday likened refugees fleeing violence in Syria to “rabid dogs,” and said that allowing them into the United States would put Americans at risk.

“If there is a rabid dog running around your neighborhood, you’re probably not going to assume something good about that dog,” Carson, a front-runner in some opinion polls, said Thursday at a campaign event in Mobile, Alabama.

“By the same token, we have to have in place screening mechanisms that allow us to determine who the mad dogs are, quite frankly,” the retired neurosurgeon said, criticizing President Barack Obama’s plan to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees within a year.

You might give him the benefit of the doubt. He seems to be talking about the bad refugees who are foaming at the mouth, not all of them. You might say that he is just tone-deaf and chose a completely terrible metaphor to make his point. You might think he is just trying to out-Trump Trump.

But what it really shows is that even if he is just an ill-informed and reckless communicator, which pretty much disqualifies him to lead the U.S. and the free world, that’s not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that if you ask, as I’m sure he does, what would Jesus do and what would he say about it, there is no chance it would sound anything like that.

What Fear and an Abundance of Caution Look Like

On Tuesday, a few days after Paris, a woman on a Spirit Airlines flight waiting to leave BWI panicked when she saw a man, apparently Middle Eastern, watching a news report on his phone. She went to the back of the plane with her child, reported the man, and then he and three others were taken off the plane, questioned, and released.

You might have missed this underreported incident, so here is an extended excerpt from the Baltimore Sun report:

The four people removed Tuesday morning from a Spirit Airlines flight from BWI to Chicago amid concerns about a threat were released without charges after being questioned, Maryland Transportation Authority police said.

A female passenger told the flight crew she saw suspicious activity, which turned out to be someone watching a news report on a smartphone, said Sgt. Jonathan Green, a spokesman for the authority’s police department, which patrols the airport.

“Everything added up to create a situation where she felt concerned,” Green said of the witness. “Everything was done in the interest of safety.”

Spirit Flight 969 was taxiing before takeoff when the passenger alerted a flight attendant, Spirit Airlines said.

“Out of an abundance of caution, the plane returned to the gate,” the airline said.

Officers removed three men and a woman from the flight, Green said. He said those passengers included a married couple, who were traveling with a family member, and a male passenger sitting near them.

Green declined to identify the people removed, including whether they were of Middle Eastern descent, as several other passengers described them….

Moments later, the pilot told passengers over the intercom that the plane was returning to the gate.

“We get back, and two police officers come onto the plane,” Farella said. The officers asked three men and a woman to follow them off the plane, she said. All of the passengers were evacuated later so the plane could be searched, Farella said.

Transportation Security Administration rescreened all of the baggage on the flight, including the bags of the four passengers who were pulled off, said TSA spokesman Mike England. “No threat was found,” he said.

One of the mantras that has been repeated after 9/11—but goes back to the world wars—is if you see something, say something. But this has never meant: If you see anything, say anything.

Under the most normal circumstances (if there is such a thing) different people are more or less fearful of different things. And under those circumstances, when that fear seems very irrational and ungrounded in reality, we might even label it neurotic or pathological. As in paranoia.

When circumstances change, as with actual or perceived terror threats, the measuring stick changes. We not only allow for heightened vigilance; we encourage it.

A lot of people carry around a bit of fear and a bit of intolerance and prejudice. Sometimes they are self-aware about it, sometimes not. Most manage to keep it in check, because life goes on, and because expressing those fears and prejudices is not universally acceptable.

Events like Paris take the lid right off that container. It isn’t surprising that ordinary people have trouble figuring out just how far to go with it. But we do expect experts—airline security, police—to bring some discernment to the situation.

In this case, it is hard to see how a man watching a phone constitutes even the tiniest evidence of a problem. If the woman told someone that was all she saw, the airline and the police should have exercised their own discretion, right then. And if the woman misreported what she saw, we might think she was misperceiving because of her own fear or actually just making things up.

The worst conclusion to reach, but one we’ve already lived through with 9/11, is that anytime a Middle Eastern type is reported to be doing anything that in any way could be construed by anybody as troubling, it will be the subject of suspicion, investigation, and detention.

Which isn’t surprising. Which will be familiar not only to Middle Eastern types, but to black people as well. And which isn’t an abundance of caution. It is just plain old prejudice.

About About

The About page of this blog has been revised.

The previous version of the page was, I have to admit, pathetically brief and uninformative. Especially for someone who regularly turns out thousands of words on any topic under the sun.

So if you are a regular reader of the blog, and are curious to find out a little more, feel free to check it out. If you think that you already know enough, or know too much, or can’t be bothered, no worries. I completely understand.

Thanks for reading and telling others if you like what you read.

Just One More

Zabuton

If you have an abiding interest or passion, it is natural to want just one more. One more thinker or writer or artist or teacher, one more book or work or class, one more experience to deepen and broaden your understanding and appreciation. And maybe your life. It is often beneficial in just that way.

The antithesis of, and sometimes antidote for, just one more is no more and enough. This isn’t always obvious or appealing, because the one more genuinely seems to do some good, even help you break through to some new level or place.

But once you have done some preparation, there is something to be said for continuing to work the same small pieces of ground, with the same old small group of teachers and guides, over and over. Maybe even just one piece of ground with one teacher or guide. It’s true that the wandering and exploration might just turn up something more and better. But it’s also true that the better or best may be there in the first piece of ground, the first book you read or teacher you listened to.

Anyway, the nature of things is not just one more. It is all this and no more.

The Cloth of Relationship

Relationships are cloths, woven over time.

Few are solid, woven from one color thread. Beautiful, if that color and weave is right. For you.

Almost as few are planned patterns, perfect plaids and checks and stripes. Maybe plans once, but even a glance reveals misses, tiny or huge.

Most are crazy weaves, and then it all depends. How is it to your eye, to your touch? Something to wear every day, to delight, to keep on the loom and add to? Something else?

What happens when threads go missing, pulled out or worn out? Most cloth will hold together, and the new design may be even better. For you.

Weave weavers.

Hillary’s Hubris: Whose Party Is It Anyway?

Who is the leader, the face, the identity of the Democratic Party? Simple: President Barack Obama. Who else?

If you ask Hillary Clinton’s supporters, or at least listen carefully to what they say, she is the party. And therein lies her biggest problem, at least among some number of Democrats.

No major party has, at least in modern times, had anyone other than a sitting President be the undisputed presumptive leader and face of the party, such that when the time came to pick a new nominee, it was a foregone conclusion. At least not one with a relatively modest record of public service. But that is exactly what is happening. Not once but now twice.

Politico reports on a dinner of high level Hillary donors at which they spoke their minds, particularly about Joe Biden:

The prospect of the grieving vice president’s potential entry into the race was a subject that obsessed the group over dinner, where many worried he will fracture the party….

“I’m concerned that the first bumpy road she hits – and there’s a man ready to knock her out, I’ve seen this before,” said Kounalakis, a close Clinton ally who is hosting a fundraiser in San Francisco for Clinton in November, and is viewed as potentially a major donor in 2016. “I’m worried we’re not accustomed to having a woman candidate at this level, and we don’t have the language to fight sexist attacks.”

Buell, who over the past 10 years has given $25 million to progressive groups and candidates, shook her head at the prospect of a Biden candidacy.

“Why would he want to go out on such a negative?” she asked her friends.

You have to read that carefully to dig out the premises or promises. Which are:

1. Hillary Clinton is the party, and whoever and whatever seriously stands in her way or questions her will “fracture the party.” That is, will disrupt her otherwise unstoppable opportunity.

2. Standing in her way is a negative act. Or, as noted in an earlier post, “Why would he want to go out on such a negative?” is one of the thinly veiled promises that if Biden proceeds to “fracture the party” he will learn just what negative means, and he will have to take his political lumps for doing so. Maybe lots of powerful money-fueled lumps.

Hubris is the sort of extreme and undeserved pride and self-confidence that offends the gods, and is usually punished by them. The gods don’t really care what happens in the byzantine and self-serving ways of American politics. But in the case of Hillary Clinton, a lot of Democrats do. They don’t want to be told that their preference for some other candidate, or their antipathy towards Hillary, is the shameful path toward splitting a noble party, or is disloyalty tantamount to treason. And you know what we do with traitors.

So maybe it isn’t Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden that are actually threatening to fracture the Democratic Party. Maybe the hubris of a particular candidate will do that all by itself.

Red Debris

Red Debris

Red debris
In a green sea of fall.
Monochrome to color
One at a time.
Herald for the forces
That will come
As they always do
To transform
Forest and field.
Asking us to forget
The green past
And embrace
Yellow brown and gold
And cold.

Bill Is Houdini, Hillary Is Not

Bill Clinton is an escape artist. It is fact, not conjecture, that he has gotten away with things that would crush other politicians and public figures.

Hillary Clinton helped enable and engineer some of those escapes, some might say against her best interest and integrity. But doing that, she may have drawn a skewed conclusion. She may overvalue those escapes as feats of engineering and scheming, and undervalue the essential role of Bill being Bill.

Bill Clinton is sui generis in American political history, one of a kind, maybe more so even than Barack Obama. The qualities are hard to describe; charm and charisma fail to completely capture it. He is special, the bad boy who is not really bad, just a little naughty, and no matter what you discover or discover he has hidden, it is nearly always alright. At least alright enough to move on.

Hillary is absolutely sui generis too. But she is no Bill and she is no Houdini. And while it is true that Houdini’s escapes were technical wonders, meticulously planned, that is not what made him the star he was. It was the personality and drama he brought to the stage that enthralled people, so much so that audiences actually wanted him to get into big trouble because they wanted him to get out of it—they needed him to get out of it. In that respect, Hillary is no Houdini. Nor is she Bill.

Guns. Period.

Another Shooting

It is not about angry people, frustrated people, mentally ill people having guns.

It is about the finality of guns. The way they are the period on the end of a life.

It. Is. As. If. You. Took. The. Normal. Length. Of. This. Sentence. And. Broke. It. Up. Unnaturally. With. Too. Many. Periods.

When all you have to do is remove all those unnecessary periods and let the sentence flow.

Too many periods. Way too many guns.

Tell every politico who represents you that if they want to stand on a deadly and unconditional view of the Second Amendment, a view that denies any sensible and humane regulation, they can stand there all day, but without an office and without your vote.

The Confederate Flag Solution

Confederate Battle Flag

A current thought is that erasing Confederate flags is a small but effective step in diminishing racism in America. More is better, and so if the effort is doubled and doubled again, we will be just that little bit closer to racial harmony and tolerance. Not a complete solution, but at least a sign of enlightenment and progress.

The effort and the self-congratulation that go with it avoid a couple of matters.

American racism is wide and deep. Even as it seems to wane, social media and having cameras everywhere is going to put once private prejudice on bold and sometimes vicious public display. Fully acknowledging it in all its forms is something to do next, but only when finger pointers check themselves and their own for hidden vermin. It is the age of actual glass houses.

The second point is that racism may not and likely will not disappear soon as a major force, no matter how we try. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but human nature and history give us pause. We can and should shield people from the effects of racism. The rights to do freely or be free of nasty consequence should be guaranteed. But that in no way assures evolution, and in some cases provokes nasty reaction. We might as well learn to live with racism, not so much accepting or condoning it, but digging deeper to learn what we can about the weaknesses that pervade life and self. One day that work of transcending racism may be successful. But that day is not today.

Just as we might acknowledge the prevalence of secret racism, including in ourselves, we might admit that racism is stubborn and intractable. We don’t have to punish ourselves on either count. But the rare process of candid self-examination might ultimately be more valuable than merely basking in the glow of having done the right but very tiny thing.